Solving the turmoil - a Thai reform panel and a contract?

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
Solving the turmoil - a reform panel and a contract?
ATTAYUTH BOOTSRIPOOM

BANGKOK: -- A TACTICAL truce is in place for the ongoing political crisis, which stemmed from anti-government protests led by former Democrat MP Suthep Thaugsuban.

The truce was achieved after protesters tried to seize several government offices, especially the Metropolitan Police Bureau and Government House.

Initially, police used force to try to defend their bureau and Government House. They fired heavy amounts of tear gas at protesters, who retaliated with ping-pong bombs. Many protesters were injured during the battles in two places.

But suddenly on Tuesday morning when the protesters vowed to overrun both centres, the police allowed them to enter the compounds.

Metropolitan Police chief Pol Lt-General Camronwit Toopgrajank allowed protesters to walk into the bureau and Government House, raising speculation the two sides had reached an agreement.

The question now is, what should the PM do to provide a solution for the political crisis? It will not be enough for her just to resign, because the Pheu Thai Party would still maintain its majority in the House after her resignation. The protesters would not accept a similar Pheu Thai-led coalition government.

A House dissolution would not be enough to please the protesters either, because no matter how a general election is held, Pheu Thai would still win most House seats, leading to a similar coalition government.

It's true that a House dissolution would not end the problems once and for all. But conditions that would follow the House dissolution would be crucial factors for returning Thai society to real peace.

One solution, which is agreed upon by all sides and is seen as a measure to prevent a coup, is to reform the political system. But the question is how the reform should be carried out. Some models have been floated to answer this question.

First, the Council of University Presidents of Thailand (CUPT) proposed that the PM should dissolve the House of Representatives. The CUPT also proposed that the caretaker government should resign to pave the way for the establishment of a government of non-partisan persons to lead political reform and set new election rules. The CUPT proposed that the new rules should be in place before a new election was held.

The proposal sounded interesting, but there was one problem. The laws do not allow a caretaker government to resign. The caretaker government is required by law to run the country pending the establishment of a new administration.

During the political crisis when Thaksin Shinawatra was prime minister, Thaksin, who was caretaker after he dissolved the House, was also called on to resign. But he could not resign so he chose to take leave and his leave had no legal effect.

The most important question is - if a non-partisan government was appointed, would all sides accept it?

Another model for a solution has been floated. The government dissolves the House and then the CUPT proposes a list of members of a political-reform committee to design political reform, or to draft a new constitution. The reform committee should be appointed by the prime minister and all sides in the conflict would sign a contract agreeing to accept all decisions of this committee.

This solution should be the most acceptable one because no side would stand to lose.

Anyway, it would depend on what both sides would base their negotiations on. If the two sides really cared about the country's interests, it wouldn't be difficult for them to reach a sustainable solution for the country.


-- The Nation 2013-12-05

[backtonormal]

Why was everything okay for 50 years and now we have to have reform because Dems are not at the trough with their paymasters. No reason for this government to stand down. Measures can be put in place without replacing a democratically elected government. They've got maybe 2 years before the next election to get together on all sides. Something tells me Suthep knows hes not got 2 years to remove Thaksin.

[PeterSmiles]

Why was everything okay for 50 years and now we have to have reform because Dems are not at the trough with their paymasters. No reason for this government to stand down. Measures can be put in place without replacing a democratically elected government. They've got maybe 2 years before the next election to get together on all sides. Something tells me Suthep knows hes not got 2 years to remove Thaksin.

Something tells me Suthep knows hes not got 2 years to remove Thaksin.

I thought Thaksin was removed 7 years ago.

[Sharp]

Why was everything okay for 50 years and now we have to have reform because Dems are not at the trough with their paymasters. No reason for this government to stand down. Measures can be put in place without replacing a democratically elected government. They've got maybe 2 years before the next election to get together on all sides. Something tells me Suthep knows hes not got 2 years to remove Thaksin.

Something tells me Suthep knows hes not got 2 years to remove Thaksin.

I thought Thaksin was removed 7 years ago.

Exactly Peter !!!

There in lies the problem

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[backtonormal]

Why was everything okay for 50 years and now we have to have reform because Dems are not at the trough with their paymasters. No reason for this government to stand down. Measures can be put in place without replacing a democratically elected government. They've got maybe 2 years before the next election to get together on all sides. Something tells me Suthep knows hes not got 2 years to remove Thaksin.

Something tells me Suthep knows hes not got 2 years to remove Thaksin.

I thought Thaksin was removed 7 years ago.

If he had truly been removed why is Suthep frothing like a rabid dog when he mentions the name Thaksin. The governments of the world know who is in charge of Thailand. I actually get great enjoyment watching Suthep. I want to whisper in his ear and tell him its a lost cause but then I would loose my fun

[arthurboy]

You can reform politics and rewrite the constitution all you like, but until the corrupt and dishonest stop being corrupt and dishonest, nothing whatsoever will ever change.

Until those on and behind the scenes stop exerting their corrupting influence, irrespective of their so-called political hue, nothing whatsoever will change.

Until the law is applied honestly and fairly and without prejudice, nothing whatsoever will change.

Sure there may be an initial bubble and groundswell of optimism among the ordinary people in this brave new world, but I cannot see for one moment the phu yai's relinquishing their right to their piece of the cake.

Edited December 5, 2013 by arthurboy

[scorecard]

You can reform politics and rewrite the constitution all you like, but until the corrupt and dishonest stop being corrupt and dishonest, nothing whatsoever will ever change.

Until those on and behind the scenes stop exerting their corrupting influence, irrespective of their so-called political hue, nothing whatsoever will change.

Until the law is applied honestly and fairly and without prejudice, nothing whatsoever will change.

Sure there may be an initial bubble and groundswell of optimism among the ordinary people in this brave new world, but I cannot see for one moment the phu yai's relinquishing their right to their piece of the cake.

Lots of truth in what you say and well balanced.

But I challenge the second half of your last paragraph. All Thais (all citizens) have a right to a fair share in the development and the opportunities, but some 'extra' benefits for pui yai's because of their 'right' is a stumbling block.

Whilst that sort of thinking remains it has wider repercussions; it probably means that pui yai's have control of villagers. Highly undesirable and in fact undemocratic.

[scorecard]

Why was everything okay for 50 years and now we have to have reform because Dems are not at the trough with their paymasters. No reason for this government to stand down. Measures can be put in place without replacing a democratically elected government. They've got maybe 2 years before the next election to get together on all sides. Something tells me Suthep knows hes not got 2 years to remove Thaksin.

I don't agree.

It hasn't been OK for all of the '50 years' you mention. It's been a very bumpy ride and the development of a real democracy with genuine parties, with specific manifestos, and with quality people is missing and has been all along.

What has developed is a more and more corrupt situation filled with nepotism which is ultimately expanding the gap between the rich and the poor. Decisions are made more on the basis of personal gain (by politicians and their hangers on) rather then what's good for the overall development of a civil society with a good quality of life for all Thais.

None of the current parties have much credibility and they all have some nasty baggage.

There must come a time where a 'catalyst' is needed to demand and demand strongly that it all change. This probably means uprising or more by the middle classes who gain a strong voice. Unfortunately it may well involve violence.

The claims of many to just wait for the next election is not a solution.

Anybody with a brain can see the current gov't doing everything then can to entrench themselves. Entrench themselves by trying to change the constitution, wipe out convictions, and more. Ethics and morals thrown to the wind and with no shame.

Edited December 5, 2013 by scorecard

[noitom]

Even when he is not skyping in, he is dominating Thai news. Thais are captivated with Thaksin. he doesn't have to do anything except exist.

[Pib]

...and all sides in the conflict would sign a contract agreeing to accept all decisions of this committee.

The nation has a contract already...its called the Constitution.

Many sides in the current conflict want the Constitution thrown out/have a major rewrite; any contract anyone would sign would just end up the same way as some sides could never agree with the outcome and then say the intent of the contract was violated therefore the contract is invalid. The Constitution no doubt needs some changes...not so sure some contract agreement among warring parties will produce that.

[Always18]

In my experience,Thais do not even understand the concept of a "contract".

In their eyes a contract is nothing more than a stupid Western irrelevance which they are happy to sign up to and then disregard when it suits them!